119
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
119 points (82.2% liked)
Technology
57944 readers
2982 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why? Solid state batteries don't use a flammable electrolyte
The electrolyte isn't the only flammable material in lithium cells.
No, but it's the difference between solid state and lithium cells. There's still a fire risk with solid state, but then there's a fire risk with ICE. It just needs better engineering like they've done with current ev batteries
That isn't what's being discussed. We're comparing cells to cells, not ICE to BEV.
I know... solid state doesn't have a flammable liquid electrolyte
If it contains energy, there's probably a way to make that energy release in an uncontrolled fashion. As energy densities increase, so does the risk if that happens.
Luckily batteries are built such that it's actually quite hard to ignite them. As are fuel tanks for the same reason.
Cool. That's not the only combustible material in a cell. And since a solid state battery only changes the electrolyte, everything else is unchanged. Meaning they are not significantly safer, because several types of liquid electrolyte aren't flammable. Crucially, this is also a reason why solid state batteries are pointless for the foreseeable future, and only bring negatives to the table.
They are significantly safer. Current li-ion in cars have some very bad failure modes; just puncturing them can release a massive, uncontrollable fire that could potentially keep itself going while fully submerged in water. Now, even those are somewhat overblown--they're pretty well protected in cars--but these problems aren't universal to all lithium chemistries, much less all batteries in general.
Yes, they can catch fire. No, you don't need four fire trucks worth of water tanks to put them out. This matters.
So you're more than a decade behind on LiB tech. Got it. Now it makes sense why you think this boondoggle is even worth discussing.
Other than the massive difference in mileage and reduction in charge time? Sure
Why do you think there are so many manufacturers trying to scale solid state? For fun?
As in solid state has lower range, lower cycle life, and higher cost. Quite an amazing hill to be attempting to defend. lmfao
As for "so many" manufacturers, there aren't many. And they've been working on this research project for two decades. Are you also a proponent of perpetual motion generators because people "have been working on them" for so long? It's long term R&D because you have to hedge your bets. The battery tech itself still sucks.
The potential benefits are enough for Samsung to be building a pilot line. That's an investment, a bet, and there are reasons why:
Higher energy density, which means more power in a smaller size and weight.
Higher safety, as the solid electrolyte is non-flammable and less prone to catch fire.
Shorter charging times, as the solid electrolyte allows faster movement of ions.
A wider range of operating temperatures, as the solid electrolyte is more stable and less affected by heat or cold.
Longer lifespan, as the solid electrolyte reduces the degradation of the electrodes
Nobody's demonstrated this in real life yet.
You're conflating two metrics, which doesn't bode well for this conversation. Gravimetric and volumetric densities are different, and so far solid state batteries don't have an advantage on either front. The hope is that they will have a gravimetric density advantage at some point, but not necessarily volumetric.
I've already explained to you that existing LiB cells use non-flammable electrolytes, so this isn't an advantage. You're a decade behind the state of the art.
Which again hasn't been demonstrated by anybody in real life yet.
Intercalation is still the slowest part of the transfer, and solid electrolyte does nothing for that. What might improve that is polymer doped cells, but so far that's been another complete disaster.
Again the electrolyte is only a part of this equation. And while it doesn't freeze like older LiB electrolyte would, we're so far past this problem in most applications that nobody even cares anymore.
Nope. Every demonstration so far has VASTLY shorter cycle lifetimes, which is further exacerbated by the worse gravimetric density. I'm really not sure where you do any of your research, but reading press releases is rotting your mind with marketing hype.
From the people who are putting their money into it.
https://www.samsungsdi.com/column/technology/detail/56462.html
You seem to be of the belief that no new battery tech ever reaches the market, which is obviously false. There is a lot of work going on to bring this to market. The truth is neither you or I know whether this will happen.
My bet is someone will crack it 👇
On fact LFP is "new" and it's selling. My take is that idiotic developments with three decades of failure don't reach the market.
Not with that sort of attitude. How long did it take solar to scale?
Not long at all, but the challenge isn't the same. Again demonstrating you don't understand the topic.
But the people who do, are building pilot production lines. Why?
They aren't though. You can't tell the difference between PR, Marketing, and real life.
They are though. Have you any idea of the capex involved in a 65,000 m2 facility?
https://m.energytrend.com/news/20230710-32628.html
Notice how that article is from July, and they didn't report progress on such a line? Odd, no? Surely in four months the tense would have gone from "will" to "is", right? And yet...
https://m.pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2023&no=793552
You see how this article, published in October, is ALSO future tense? One should wonder why if they've started building a factory line in March, there's been no change in tense, or note on progress. Hmmmm. You just made my point for me. Thank you.
Completed. Do you understand business planning? Product road maps? How anything gets done?
https://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=203912
I think you're gullible, and that's about the only thing this thread has revealed. But you go on believing fairy tales, it makes zero difference to me.
Lol, so when I show you a completed 65,000 m2 pilot line, it's a fairy tale.
People who don't change their minds when presented with facts are rigid minded fools.
I guess Samsung and >10% of their R&D budget and all the other R&D scientists must be wrong and some opinionated condescending twat on the internet must be correct 😂🤡
Now get back to your shitty tech support queue, those printers won't switch themselves off and on again.
Now look who's the condescending cunt. Wow. What a gaping asshole you are. Even if I was on printer support, I'd be a better person than you, sou sniveling waste of air. You didn't show shit, you posted marketing bullshit. Which is what I expect from a know nothing loser that thinks they're above other people. Only the lowest of low think that way, and I couldn't care what someone like that thinks.
Enjoy your miserable life, you'll never be happy thinking you're better than anyone else.
Get bent before I have to block you. I know more than you. That's all it takes. Anyway, back to your miserable life.